High court case on puberty blockers and consent

Fieldofgreycorn

It’s not completely up to date, but these charts might be of interest re numbers of referrals/numbers going onto PB

tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/documents/408/gids-service-statistics.pdf

I think the whole point about Gillick competence is that the child can decide the treatment regardless of what their parents want.

Yes it is, but in virtually all cases of PBs the parents are consenting anyway so I’m not sure where Gillick would come into it.

267 out of how many referrals? Out of how many children? Is it possible that numerator represents approximately the 10 to 20% that would not desist?

To me, it’s as much about educating parents, or having parents start to question the approach, as it is getting a positive court ruling.

Yes fair enough rodgmum that’s a good point. Gids have implied that some parents had pressured them into treatment. Also it might highlight the need for increased mental health resources particularly more intensive psychotherapy to support children without medical intervention.

Suicide stats!

How can the Tavi argue the statistic stats when they themselves publicly say they are false/misleading?

What arguments will they use? What evidence of benefit is there?

Probably the false suicide stuff. And the fact that so few people desist on PBs can be argued both ways - it can be argued that this is evidence that PBs were the right treatment.

Let's hope Mrs A's barrister knows his stuff and can contest claims about suicide etc.

They will argue that PBs are as necessary to a GD teen as a termination is to a teenager with an unwanted pregnancy.

What arguments will they use? What evidence of benefit is there?

I dont think I've ever been so scared and angry In my.life that I am now for children I've never even met...

Sarah As a parent with an “RODG” teen girl, even if the case loses, my hope is that all of the risks and issues around the GIDS path will gain far wider publicity than it currently has. I’m hoping that the concept of watchful waiting will be highlighted and that more parents will start to realise that they have choices other than going down the GIDS route. There are support groups for these parents- they are just hard to find through the tangle of Mermaids etc.

GIDS might be best for some children, but IME, many have ended up there through parents who either haven’t realised watchful waiting exists, or have swallowed the Mermaids hard sell of affirmation, or are too scared of the suicide stats, or have Munchausens by proxy, or whatever. To me, it’s as much about educating parents, or having parents start to question the approach, as it is getting a positive court ruling.

R4 are covering this now.

But in the vast majority (of these actually very small numbers) of children being prescribed PBs isn’t it being done with parental consent anyway?

It’s not very small numbers.

Gids' data suggests that between 2012 and 2018, 267 people under the age of 15 started using the blockers.

www.bbc.com/news/health-49036145

267, and that’s just in one centre.

There is no way on Earth that any 11 year old can understand what full adult sexual function entails - orgasm in particular - and consent to giving it up at that age, something they haven’t actually experienced. Anyone who thinks later academic achievements are an indication of competency of 11 year olds in areas such of this is misguided. An intelligent 11 year old may be able to understand the concept of orgasm, but they can’t truly appreciate what they are giving up. Honestly, look back at your 11 year old self and think about what you knew then about sex and what you know now. There is just no way. And if an 11 year old is actually experienced enough about sex to understand then there’s a whole lot of shit to be sorted out with that well before puberty blockers are put in place.

And then what about those other 11 year olds? What about the ones who have low IQ? Have trauma, anxiety or depression that clouds their judgement? Have autism (25%) that changes their view on social relationships? This is what the case is arguing, that a judge should be involved in assessing on a case-by-case basis:

Providing this treatment – puberty blocking and cross-sex hormones – to any young person who wants them requires, he argues, “a specific order of the court on a case-by-case basis. [The treatment] cannot be delivered as a matter of general approach”

If the judge thinks all the relevant factors have been thoroughly assessed then the treatment will be approved [should this case win]. We can then be (reasonably) confident children will then only receive puberty blockers when all avenues have been explored. This will be safer for the child, offer more protection for the child, and be better for the practitioners involved because they can argue in any subsequent legal challenge in the future that it was a judge-approved decision. So why the hell are activists so against this?

Some possibilities are:

• the belief it will delay this element of treatment which we are repeatedly told “saves lives” with regards to suicide even though that isn’t true and can clearly be demonstrated as such or

• activists don’t want to see any open challenge to or discussion of the fact that there are multiple issues at play with teenagers with gender identity issues that mean it’s not a simple protocol of diagnosis->treatment, because that would highlight errors that have been made thus far in providing these medications to children or

• activists believe the courts should not be involved in medical decisions, in which case they should be able to demonstrate a good body of evidence - by which I would mean proper research, not “this is what everyone does” - to delineate what the long term implications of these therapies are and proof that children can fully comprehend these implications.

It says a great deal about a person, anyone, who would want to remove protections for children. If people are so confident puberty blockers are right for kids, the judges will approve them and all will be fine. What is everyone afraid of?

In addition to marriage etc. AFAIK you also can't consent to a tattoo until you're 18 (rightly so in my opinion). But drugs used off label, in under 18s with potentially hugely damaging physical and psychological consequences and no research base.....be my guest!

But in the vast majority (of these actually very small numbers) of children being prescribed PBs isn’t it being done with parental consent anyway?

I think the whole point about Gillick competence is that the child can decide the treatment regardless of what their parents want.

But in the vast majority (of these actually very small numbers) of children being prescribed PBs isn’t it being done with parental consent anyway?

So they can refuse to perform a sterilisation or to prescribe PBs. However, if a treatment is offered

So why are they offering a sterilising treatment to children, when they are refusing to sterilise adult women? The sterilising treatment they are offering children isn't even the main treatment, it's a side effect. If women who already have children 'might change their minds' about sterilisation, surely this is even more true of children.

Sterilising children because they don't conform to regressive gender norms, or because they might be gay. FFS.

These people are actually suggesting that making a perfectly healthy child into a lifelong medical patient who is infertile, has no sexual function and is likely to have a shorter life expectancy is not a worse outcome than just leaving them alone to grow up into healthy adults with all their body parts intact and working normally?

The problem is that they can deflect this by saying that no one has to have medical intervention and that's not what being trans is about. Because that's how the older MTFs behave. When they are actively encouraging most of the children down this pathway.

Which means we could be decades away from stopping this insanity.

Dunno- cases already happening in the US, I believe. I guess that a few multi-million class actions over there would have the NHS thinking twice.

But as has been pointed out on this thread, women in their 20s and 30s and even 40s struggle to get a sterilisation on the NHS because they might change their minds.

There is a difference between consent to a treatment that is offered versus being able to compel a doctor to carry out a treatment. Doctors cannot be compelled to perform any treatment. So they can refuse to perform a sterilisation or to prescribe PBs. However, if a treatment is offered, an adult woman has an absolute right to accept or decline it, even on flimsy or non-existent grounds, as long as she has capacity- which the Law presumes she does. If she is under 16 though, a doctor must assess whether she is Gillick competent and she cannot consent if she is not.

I think the exact words in the tweet from someone who's a well known trainer/adviser

"........let's be less concerned with certainty and more concerned with improving peoples lives"

When discussing how they werent going to accidently make someone trans but trans isnt a bad outcome...

Why would being "cis" be a better outcome than being "trans"?

These people are actually suggesting that making a perfectly healthy child into a lifelong medical patient who is infertile, has no sexual function and is likely to have a shorter life expectancy is not a worse outcome than just leaving them alone to grow up into healthy adults with all their body parts intact and working normally?

Words fail me.

Considering under 18s aren’t able to vote or marry (at least not without parental consent), and under 16s cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse, I completely agree that they should not be considered capable of being able to make such life-changing decisions about their bodies. Glad to hear this case is going ahead.

Sadly though, I think it will be through detransistioners suing GIDS, rather than via this case.

Which means we could be decades away from stopping this insanity.

I've seen a trans activist claim that this very question is transphobic. Why would being "cis" be a better outcome than being "trans"? So at least some of them do think all these children should be treated, even if the treatment does end up making trans adults out of gender-nonconforming gay "cis" children.

I've seen this kind of reasoning too. They are collateral damage.

a 15 year old can understand what infertility entails.

But as has been pointed out on this thread, women in their 20s and 30s and even 40s struggle to get a sterilisation on the NHS because they might change their minds. These women understand what that means, and may already have had children, but they can't get this treatment. The NHS would have to argue that a 15-year-old who is confused about 'gender' has more understanding of what this entails than responsible adult women.

Do you think all these children should be treated even though they will have a better outcome by not being treated?

I've seen a trans activist claim that this very question is transphobic. Why would being "cis" be a better outcome than being "trans"? So at least some of them do think all these children should be treated, even if the treatment does end up making trans adults out of gender-nonconforming gay "cis" children.

XX

Yes I do think it will eventually happen. I'm just not sure what level of sheer catastrophe it will entail in order for that to happen.

It seems so far that there isnt anything that's deemed terrible enough. I really dont know how such utter nonsense has got so far despite the piles of evidence to the contrary and despite attempts at every turn to try and shut us all up.

But it's not over til its over.

These children are worth fighting for. And fight we will.

Don't despair Sarah. Ultimately, I think the Law will be instrumental in stopping prescribing of PBs. Sadly though, I think it will be through detransistioners suing GIDS, rather than via this case.

But I could be wrong. The fact that there isn't much case law around Gillick makes it harder to predict the outcome. If Mrs A's lawyers can convince the court that PBs are substantially different from other medical treatments, they are in with a chance. 🤞🏻